PTAB gives reprimand on 101 in CHIABRERA

From within Ex parte CHIABRERA

The Examiner’s post-Bilski Answer does not acknowledge the
decision in Bilski. Thus, the Examiner’s analysis is not consistent with the
USPTO § 101 subject matter eligibility determination guidance issued to all
USPTO examiners on August 24, 2009 4 and July 27, 2010.5 That guidance
was incorporated in Revision 9 of the Eighth Edition of The Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) issued in August 2012. (See MPEP §
2106; 8th Ed., Rev. 9). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

4 Memorandum from Andrew H. Hirshfeld, Acting Deputy Comm’r for
Patent Examination Policy, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (to the
Technology Center Directors), New Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Examination Instructions (August 24, 2009) available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-
25_interim_101_instructions.pdf.
5 Memorandum from Robert W. Bahr, Acting Assoc. Comm’r for Patent
Examination Policy, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (to the Patent
Examining Corps), Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter
Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos (July 27, 2010)
available at
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/bilski_guidance_27jul2010.pdf
(including Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for
Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,922 (July 27,
2010)(notice)).